Skip to main content
5:30 pm
>> maybe i will just save those questions for her. >> thank you. >> mr. mauer, will your department have sufficient budget to maintain the new trees? >> so the unique thing about this particular park is half the trees -- it's a city block, so two streets are actually maintained by rec and park and our staff will maintain the trees after we put them in. two of the other streets i believe steiner and ellis are part of the dpw infrastructure and i say that in quotes a little bit because it's recreation and park garden staff maintains curb to curb in those instances. the true responsibility relies in two departments, but the reality is that parks and recreation garden staff will maintain the trees overtime. this is part of the clean
5:31 pm
neighborhood, $3.3 million to address this and other park improvements. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners carla short, department of public works urban forestry. i don't really have anything to add to what dan said, but we did indicate this trees a tree appropriate for removal based on the recent limb failure and the presence of decay already. we're already seeing the signs of decay. the limb -- i didn't see it when it came off the tree as well, but based on what remains and i will switch photos on the overhead. basically this area is that
5:32 pm
limb that failed. so it does appear that it was probably a similar size to the other limbs, which is very typical for this species. they have a form that is not ideal. it's called decurrent. so they have multiple limits that emanate from the trunk at one point. the problem is it's more prone to limb failure inherently because of that form but once you have a limb failure, what we see is multiple failures after that. because the tree is now weakened at the union of all of those branches. so it is a beautiful tree. i am very sympathetic to mr. vigneau and i had previously worked with him to keep trees on the monitoring system when we had previous tree removals. i think we have an opportunity with the renovation of the park to get additional street trees planted, 10 additional trees and a one for one replacement of the 14 trees and given that we have seen one limb failure
5:33 pm
already and decay in that union where those other limbs emanate from, we felt this tree should be removed. >> i have a question. this may not be -- you may not be able to answer this, but what is the likelihood of the other limbs failing? i understand that you have seen that happen before, but i don't know if you could quantify how likely that is. >> we can't quantify, but i can say this specie is prone to limb failures and once a limb fails, it's often we see limb failure, but we can't give a quantification. >> are there other trees -- i think and i am happy to be corrected when limb failures have happened and perhaps other species or even this type of tree, is it a single limb
5:34 pm
failure sufficient to warrant the cutting down of this entire tree? >> well, in this case -- >> you know what i am saying? >> yes. >> there are many other pieces of this tree that look pretty solid and strong by my naked eye, but i'm not an expert and i would like to hear from you on that. >> limb failure would not justify the removal of most trees, but with this specie and where this limb failure occurred it's increasing the likelihood we will have additional limit failures. it's strong at the trunk and i agree with that assessment, but these are substantial limbs and when they break off, they can cause substantial damage. hopefully no one is there during storms. people are not often out, but people still drive during storms. so i would say because this limb failed at the union, because we are already seeing decay at the union, and in some
5:35 pm
cases we don't see decay right way, we would not jump to the conclusion to remove the tree. but this particular failure tore out at that main union and we're seeing decay going into the trunk and it's weakening the trunk below the other limbs. >> so what is time period for decay? >> even healthy limbs break off with this specie because of structural weaknesses of the current form. so i can't predict that. >> and the replacement trees, can you describe them? it may have been described in the materials, but what is the size of the replacement trees . 36" box for the 14 trees that have been approve for removal and replacement and i don't
5:36 pm
know, would the additional 10 be 36" box? >> most likely. >> okay, thank you. >> what species? >> the species hasn't been identified yes. blackwood acacia has weak spots and i will deferring to the landscape architect with dpw and garden staff and bureau of urban forestry what is best tree for that location. >> your brief indicated that the species would be selected by buf. >> that is a condition of their permit. >> so what are you going to put in? >> we haven't selected. >> what are you likely to put in? >> there are london plain trees on one side of the park. so we would likely replace any trees we would recommend london plains to go in. >> lemon?
5:37 pm
>> london plain trees. >> okay. >> we would work with the rec and park department to come up with a species we would approve, but a condition of their permit is that we have to approve their species. >> how tall is a 36" box? >> depends on the species. >> well, the ones you may or may not select. >> for example, if we want with a ginkgo, it would not be as tall. 36" box fast -growing species would be 15' and beginningo with likely be 10' tall at installation . that is a slower-growing tree. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, mr. vigneau, you have three minutes of rebuttal, if you have anything further to add?
5:38 pm
>> i appreciate your kindness in allowing me a few minutes more. what mr. mauer -- >> could you speak into the microphone, please? >> what mr. mauer presents, he showed me is the company who came to check on those trees, but i would be glad and satisfied if i would have seen the plan of the work that is going to be done. with this sentence, i will not any longer insist after this. thank you very much. >> did you just say you are not longer insisting on appealing this? >> what i mean is that i have mentioned that i suspect this tree was [speaker not understood] they went to make a lot of work in the park in that area and they want to replace the area where the children are playing and i believe they want to
5:39 pm
replace these with basketball courts and of course, they will make a lot of transformation, which requires machinery to be coming to do the work. >> okay. >> so you are saying that you suspect - >> excuse me? >> you are saying that you suspect that they want to remove the tree not because it's failing or it's decaying, but because they want to make room for entry of machinery? is that what you are trying to say? >> i did not understand all of what you just said. >> yes. maybe we can let the representative from parks and recreation address that concern you just stated and your brief as well. >> i think his concern is that the project, the capital work that we're doing and the construction work is the reason
5:40 pm
we're proposing to move this tree. in fact, the oppose. it was identified through bureau of forestry after they found that decay and branch break. the picture that you have in your package shows the entrance to the park, playground. it's going to be maintained in that configuration after we're done with the renovation. what we're doing is replacing some of the sidewalk along that stretch to comply with ada requirements. so we're going to be pulling out those trees obviously have an invasive roots and they are pushing the sidewalk up. so we're going to tear up the sidewalk and replace the sidewalk so we don't have tripping hazards during that stretch of sidewalk. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. miss short, did you have anything further to add? okay. why don't you hold onto those until the board votes? you can leave it there if you want. it's up to you. that is fine. >> did mr. mauer have any last comments? >> did you need other time for
5:41 pm
rebrutal. rebuttal. >> can it withstand a 48" box? >> i have to look at the overall budget. the box size doesn't always indicate the size of the tree as larger. it's more of the root ball size that is larger and in some cases the root ball get too large to put in a sidewalk applications.
5:42 pm
if your budget could handle it, i would suggest that you go to larger trees, so that the visual transition occurs a little bit better with the resident as round -- residents around the area. >> i will have to evaluate the budget. >> unless you have additional questions for the parties, the matter is submitted. >> i think i would move to deny the appeal. i have been pretty well convinced this tree has issues and there is a risk in leaving it up. and as i think i said on the first hearing on the tree, it's nobody's favorite chore to get rid of a beautiful tree, but i think it presents a danger to the public and there is a reasonable plan for replaying it. so i would move to deny.
5:43 pm
>> would that be on the basis of the dpw order which reflects those issues? >> yes? >> okay. so that motion is made by commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. on the basis of the dpw order. vice president fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> that motion carries and the permit is upheld. thank you. >> i would like to call item no. 6 and i want to make sure that thetern for the appellant in that case is in the room. could you raise your hand if you are here, mr. girardi? excellent, just walked into the room.
5:44 pm
appeal no. 12-085, cambon connoisseur cooperative, inc. versus the zoning administrator. 33 cambon drive aka 6-85 cambon drive, appealing a letter of determination dated july 10 20 12 addressed to matthew girardi regarding whether a medical cannabis dispensary use would be permitted at the subject property. >> my name is matthew girardi and i'm a lawyer and represent the managing patient members of a proposed collective called cambon connoisseur collective and we're challenging a letter of did determination issued by mr. sanchez in which he found 33 cambon drive is not a suitable location for a mcmcd site because it may be within 1,000 feet of a park, namely the merced playground. california law mandates that
5:45 pm
the site be 600' away from schools, churches, places where people get treatment for drug and alcohol. the city of san francisco enacted planning code section 790-141 which increases the radius from 600' to 1,000'. the public policy behind the law is clear, and that the city of san francisco and, in fact the managing patient members of cambon collective believe that the children have to be protected from collectives. and from inadvertently coming in contact with medical cannabis. the difficulties in measuring the distance are twofold. one is the size of the two locations. :based on the measures
5:46 pm
[r-eurpt/]s requirements from the city of san francisco, [speaker not understood] the second difficult in measuring the distance between the two is there is junipero sero road and the other street bifurcate the two locations. as a result of having a almost a highway bifurcating the area, the likelihood of a child walking from the school to the collective is zero. there is no crosswalk and protected crossing and you have to walk nearly a mile and cross and come down. so although the public plice is in place to protect children from inadveteranly walking into a collective and i understand there may be children at the
5:47 pm
merced heights playground. although it's difficult to measure the exact distance between the two sites and we have had it measured four times and the four times i got it measured i got different distances, 977, 991 and 1005 between the two locations. and although it's difficult to measure what is not difficult to determine and not difficult to recognize is the overwhelming community support for cambon. caribbean mccoy the director of the the friends and neighbors of merced heights playground has written a letter of support. the park merced merchant as the associations, the neighborhood association agree that 33
5:48 pm
cambon would be an ideal location. my clients and i appreciate the law. we understand the importance of this type of structure to keep the inadvertent interaction of these two things from coming into each other. but more important than feet, is the way that the collective is operated. first and foremost of you have to have a professional and non-discrete location, storefront and what that is what they have. the second most important thing is to maintain impeccable security. i represent collectives regularly all throughout the state and the way you get into trouble is by having a minor get into your collective. having a minor end up with your medicine, and we agree that is a huge problem. that problem is not made any less safe by this arbitrary
5:49 pm
1,000' requirement. so in closing, i humbling request that you grant -- that you find that mr. sanchez abused his discretion by issuing the determination that 33 cambon site is not a suitable site for a collective. nowadays the biggest problem i encounter is not with spacing, depending on the city you are in, but the presence of clustering of the mcds and when they enacted the statutes, what is happening that you will have two or three collectives on one corner or two or three on one block and clearly at the proposed site at 33 cambon we don't have a cluster. and the absence of the cluster is one thing that gives community support that it needs a medical cannabis dispensary in its location. thank you. >> mr. girardi, i have a question for you. if we were to follow your method of measuring within 1,000', the method you are
5:50 pm
proposing, which is walking, rather than as the crow flies. let me finish my question. wouldn't that create arbitrariness in the future in that we would have a different method of determining that for every case that came before us? >> [stp-eu/] i wasn't saying that is how we should take the tape measure and walk the route that i attempted to walk. i was merely demonstrating in opposition to the public policy is that the public policy is completely inapplicable in this situation because it's impossible to walk from one to the other. it's not possible. i mean, unless you are willing to walk two or three miles and that is clearly out of the scope of 1,000' requirement. i used that to demonstrate how difficult it would be that the legislators wanted to cure by enacting the 1,000' radius? >> in your brief your argument is that you are outside of the
5:51 pm
1,000' requirement, is that correct? >> we had it measured four times and came up with four different measurements. one was 1005 and that was outside. that is not taking into consideration that you walked the route i walked. these are now square parcels, you know, laid out on a grid? they are long meandering things and it's impossible to tell you, so you have to think maybe this would be the closest spot spot. it's really impossible to determine. >> okay. so what would bet be the method you would propose that would be a fair method? >> the fairest method to measure from site leased for the specific purpose of running a medical cannabis dispensary to the closest spot to. it and the stripmall is different stalls that that have been
5:52 pm
measured out. cambon is at the far right, but they measure it like the closest spot to the collective and it's really not fair. >> okay. so by your measurements, if you were to set the standard in measuring the distance should be in it's in the closest spot to the dispensary should be the point at which they take the tape measure, take it to the perimeter of the site? for example the playground, you said was on an acre? >> correct. >> so it would include the acreage, not just the building structure? >> that is correct. aside from the inches and miles and feet that is supposed to somehow protect the children from coming into contact with medical cannabis, we have to be smarter than that. we have to look at what the likelihood. >> i don't think anyone asked you a question. you are continuing to argue.
5:53 pm
is your time still going? a pollsing if i apologize if it is. >> do you have time left? >> keep talking? >> sorry about that. >> i understand that we have to keep people away, but the eight lanes' of highway do that, more effectively than a child not walking a thousand feet, i think. >> are you finished? >> i am. >> has your client already entered into a lease for the property? >> yes, they have. >> have you submitted an application for this in addition, to the lod? >> yes. >> and where is that application at this point? >> i think it's in a buenos
5:54 pm
until we have permission from you to move forward. >> what is before us is the letter of determination. >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> setting aside the arguments how one should measure under these particular circumstances would make the distance 1005'? >> that is correct. >> and the other question that i had relates to some of the process questions. this is the third attempt to get an lod and it just strikes me as why did you do that? i mean was it in order to make your appeal within the time period? >> the first appeal was not submitted by me, but submitted by someone unrelated. >> the lod? >> the request for a letter of determination. my first request for a letter
5:55 pm
of determination was -- i was told that -- i was given legal advice some someone on the phone at the board of -- and i'm trying to think -- the planning commission that i should file a dr application after getting a letter of determination. and i started to do that and they said oh, no, you have 15 days to file. i was advised to simply resubmit my letter of determination and file for this hearing. >> you were saying as of march 19, 2012, the first time you are taking action on believe behalf of your client you went the route of a dr request? >> that is correct. >> okay. i don't have any further
5:56 pm
questions for now. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> before we hear from the zoning administrator, i just want to see if there is anyone representing the subject property owner, who is also considered a party to this appeal? that person is not in the room. mr. sanchez, go ahead. >> thank you, good afternoon president hwang, members of the board and welcome commissioner honda and look forward to working with you. scott sanchez for the planning department, the subject roproperty is located with an nc s, a neighborhood-commercial shopping sister zoning district. there are very few of these. it's a mall essentially a larger parcel. we did review several letter of determination requests related to the usablability usable of the site for medical cannabis dispensary and found that the property was located within a thousand fee of merced playground that contains a
5:57 pm
recreation center serving people underage 18 years of age. on march 8th, 2012 mr. girardi requested the possibility of locating a mcd. and we issued a letter of determination stating it was within a thousand feet. i would note that there was a discretionary review filed that was filed after the letter of determination was submitted. it was filed march 16th, 2012, canceled the same day that the letter of determination was issued. the letter of determination as standard boil plate language saying that if you found this
5:58 pm
is an abuse of discretion -- so the letter of determination was requested on june 15th we received another letter of determination request that had slightly different argument so i think that is not in dispute, what is in student is the appellant would like or finds there is an error or abuse in discretion in terming section 790-14 1 and i would argue that
5:59 pm
the language and it states that the parcel containing an mcd cannot be located within a thousand feet of a parcel containing a recreation center that primarily serves persons under 18 years of age. so i would find that the letter of determination was appropriately issued and would respectfully request that the board of appeals would find the same. i would note that the appellant has argued there is no way possible to walk between the two. they actually submitted walking directions in exhibit 3 of their brief, approximately half a mile walking directions. i walked on several different mapping programs and they each have walking directions and each is a little different.

December 5, 2012 5:30pm-6:00pm PST

Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color